ht:. 



E4M 








Glass Li^LH 



(Br^/TIf 



The Calhoun Revolution: Its Basis and its Process. 



SPEECH 



Weat. E«8. Hitfc. Boo. 



OF 



HON. J. R. DOOLITTLE, 

OF W^ISCONSIN. 



Delivered in the United States Senate, January 3, 1860. 



Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. President, I desire, also, 
to submit a few observations upon one portion 
of the President's messaj^fe referred to by the 
honorable Senator [Mr. Brown] who has just 
preceded me. I read from the message : 

" I cordially /coDgratukito you upon the Dmil spttlcmnnt, 
by the Supreme Court of thc"Uuit<?il SUiUs, ot tho questiou 
of slavery in the Territories, wiiich had preseul •A au aspect 
80 truly formidabl! at the coramenccmcutof my .vlministra- 
lion. Tho right has hoeu established of every citizen to take 
bis property of any kind, iucUuliug slaves, iuto the common 
Territories "belonging equally to all tho t>tutos of the Conl'ed- 
oracy, and to have it protected thoro under the Federal Con- 
stitution. Neither Congress, nor a Territorial I/Cgislature, 
nor any human power, has any authority to annul or impair 
this vested right." 

And again, I read upon the same page: 

" Thus has the status of a Territory", during the intcrme- 
UiiUc period from its llrst geltlemcnt until it shall become a 
State, been irrevocably Uxcd by the final decision of the Su- 
preme Court." 

■ In the first place, sir, what strikes me <7ith 
great force is the radical change in the opinious 
of Mr. Buchanan within the last twelve years. 
Twelve years ago, he stated deliberately to the 
American people that " the inference, in his 
opinion, was irresistible, that Congress had the 
power to legislate upon the subject of slavery in 
the Territories." To-day, as President, he de- 
clares that 

" Tho right has been established of every citizen to take 
his property of any kind, including slaves, into iXi". common 
Territories belonging equally to all tho States of the Confed- 
eracy, and to have it protected there under tho Federal 
Constitution ; " and that "neither Congress, nor a Territorial 
Legislature, nor any human power, has any authority to an- 
nul or impair this vested right." 

Sir, ia it not most reniarkablo that a man of 
•hia ability and experience, after having, at the 
ripened age of fifty years and upwards, declared 
that the question is so free from all doubt that, 
ia his opinion, the inference is irresistible that 
Googress has the power to legislate upou tho 



subject of slavery in the Territories, should, 
for some reason, now, in the later years of his 
life, after he has passed the period of three- 
score, so completely change his opinions on 
this question as to maintain and declare' that 
" neither Congress, nor a Territorial Legislature, 
nor any human power," has the right to resist 
the introduction of slavery, into the Territories 
of the United States, or "to annul or impair 
that vested right?" What an extraordinary 
change must have come over the opinion of this 
man within thelast few years 1 

But, sir, the change in bis opinion is no 
greater than the change which has come over 
the opinions of hundreds and thousands in the 
Southern States. In 184G, the opinion found 
few advocates among the men of the South, 
that Congress had not the constitutional power 
to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the 
Territories, and fewer still trfat slavery is 
carried into and protected in them under the 
Federal Constitution. There were none at the 
North. It is a new thought ; it is an afterthought. 
It is not an original conclusion to which men's 
minds have come, but it is a part of a sys- 
tematic attempt to revolutionize public opinion, 
to promote what the slave power deems to be its 
pecuniary and political interests. The le.ading 
men of the South, having taken these new 
grounds, have dictated to the pnrty in pow 
during ^he last and present Administration 
change in its opinions arj'l its policy. 

A distinguished gentleman, the Vice Pree: 
of the United States, for whom I entertair 
highest respect, in a late speech delivered in 
Kentucky, used the following language, speaking 
of the different sta,te of circumstances under 
which the men of the South now find themselves, 
compared with what it was ten years ago : 



new 
ow sLi 



v., • ^ \ •— •■ 



^A'-''^, 

^:^^*^ 






" We havn the Executive ; we have the laws ; we have 
the decisions ol the courts ; and that 13 a great advance from 
wlieie we stood ten years ago." 

In February, 1847, Mr. Calhoun introduced in 
the Senate a resolution declaring, for the first 
time, this dociiiue, that the Constitution, of its 
own force, guaranties the right to take slaves 
into the Territories of ihe United States ; and, at 
the same time, another resolution denying the 
power of Congress to inhibit it. Up to that time, 
very few, among the orominent men at the South, 
assented to that doctrine. Under his lead, how- 
ever, they have changed Iheir ground, and have 
changed the ground of the Democratic party, 
using its organization to force on a revolution 
in opinion on this question ; and to a very great 
extent, I confess, they have already succeeded 
with those who still act with that party. 

I do not deny that they voted against the Con- 
gressional prohibition sought to be applied in 
1846; but what I say is this, that there were 
very few of them who took the ground at that day 
that the Congress of the United States, under 
the Constitiition, had not the power to make the 
prohibition, if they sought to apply it. Sir, the 
whole history of this Government, from the begin- 
ning down to 1847, was a history of prohibition 
or limitation of slavery on the part of Congress ; 
and there never was an act orgauixlng any Ter- 
ritory under the authority of the United States, 
which did not in the act itself recognise the 
power of Congress to legislate upon the subject 
of slavery previoHs to 1847; but I shall Lave 
occasion to refer to them more in detail here- 
after. 

I desire for a single moment now to inquire 
into, and, if possible, probe this thing to the 
bottom, and see what has brought about this 
revolution of sentiment upon this question. The 
truth is, that the South have chan'ged their 
ground on the whole subject of slavery— slavery 
in the abstract, and slavery in its relations to the 
legislative ami judicial powers of this Govern- 
ment. We of the Republican party stand where 
Jur fathers stood, where your f.ithers stood, and 
where you yourselves stood but a very few years 
ago, on this question of slavery. You then,'and 
/our fathers %1 ways, admitted slavery to be an evil, 
to be tolerated as a necessity until you could see 
your way to get rid of it ; but you did not take 
the ground that slavery was a blessing, and in 
accordance with natural right. 

You have not, until recently, assumed the 
doctrine that the natural and normal condition 
of the laboi'ing man is that of a slave. It is 
within the last few years that this doctrine has 
been promulgated at the South, and I grant that 
there, it has made and is making most rapid 

"des. It reaches your schools, aud^t reaches 

ur churches, and it reaofaes your public jour- 



Mr. CHESNUT. With the permission of the 



That is the ground vre assume as the posJtien, 
not of the white laborer, but of tire African 
laborer, in this country. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. "l understand, Mr. Presi- 
dent, that some of the leading men and journals 
of the South, in defending slavery, do not un- 
dertake to justify it upon the ground of negro 
slavery alone. The Review of Mr. De Bow, the 
Richmond Enguirer, the Charleston Mercury, the 
Richmond Examiner, and the book published by 
Mr. Fitzhugb, which was commended very gen- 
erally by the leading Democraitc press to the 
people of the South, take the ground and justify 
slavery, not because slaves are negroes — the de- 
scendants of Ham-^but put it upon the broader 
ground, and, as they allege, the only defensible 
ground upon which slavery can rest, that the 
natural and normal condition of the laboring 
man is that of a slave ; and that the true ground 
on which to reconcile this contiict between cap- 
ital and labor is, that capital should own its 
labor, and not hire it. 

[Mr. DooLiTTLE was here interrupted by Mr. 

[ Cl.vy, of Alabami., and also by Mr. Bitows, of 

Mississippi, who made some remark?, which 

are omitted, substantially concurring with Mr. 

Chesnl't. See Appendixj Note A.] 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. President, I shall, per- 
haps, from what has now occurred, do what I 
did not intend in the outset, refer to soine South- 
ern authorities bearing on this question. I do 
not say that all the leading men and presses 
of the South to-day take the ground that the 
laboring man is a slave, whether white or black, 
but I do maintain that some of their lead- 
ing presses and some of their leading men do 
take that position, and do justify slavery, upon 
the ground liiat the true way to reconcile this 
troublesome question of capital and labor is 
simply this : tuat capital should own its labor, 
and not hire it. The honorable Senator from 
South Carolina, [.Mr. Hammo.vd,] the colleague 
of the gentleman who first interrupted me, in 
his famous speech, delivered here, denomi- 
nated the " roud-sill speech '' — I speak of it 
with no disrespect to him, but merely to des- 
ignate the speech in which that term was used — 
su'bsUntially took th» ground that the laboring 
white men of the North were slaves in fact, 
though not in name, as much so as the negroes 
of the Soutli who are actually held .in the con- 
dition q/" .slavery. That is one authority. 

[Here Mr. Ches.vdt made some more extended 
remarks. Mr. D. resumed.] 

I do not deny that men at the South differ in 
their opinions, some, perhaps the majority, as 
yet, maintaining that the doctrine that the nat- 
ural and normal co|»dition of the laboring man 
is that of a .^lave, applies to the negro race, and 
to the negro race alone; but, at the same time, 
I maintain that leading men and presses at the 
South undertake to jusfify slavery, not upon the 



Senator from Wisconsin, I deny that the position ' ground of negro slaven/ as an exceptional institu- 



at the South is that the normal condition of the 
laboring man is that of slavery. The position 
is, that the normal contlition of the African 
among us is that of slavery, and the proper con- 
dition. It is the true and only beneficial relation. 



tion, but upon the broader and higher grouffd 
that slavery, in the abstract, is right and nat- 
ural, and "the most safe and stable basis for 
free institutions in the world." 
Mr. PUGH. I hope the Senator will permit 



me to interrupt him. I want to make a sugges- 
tion. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. If the gentleman is from 
the South, at this stage of the discussion I will 
give way. 

Sir. PDGH. No, sir; I wish to say something 
to you as a Northern man, if the Senator will 
permit me. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I desired to address myself 
to the Senate ; and when I was speaking upon a 
subject which concerned particularly Southern 
States, and was addressing myself to Southern 
men, I consented to be interrupted by them. If, 
however, my friend from Ohio desires to say 
anything special, I have no objection to hear 
him. 

Mr. PUGH. I was about to suggest to the 
Senator, that the shortest way to settle the fact 
was to name some man or some newspaper, be- 
cause I have heard just such suggestions as that 
made a thousand times to the people of the non- 
slaveholding States, and I believe it has done 
more to produce this ill blood than any other 
course of assertion. Now, the SWator is contra- 
dicted ; let him give the authority, and it can 
be easily settled one way or the other. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, I name the Richmond 
Examiner^ which said : 

" Our object in these preliminary remarks is to show how 
unwise it is for tbo Soutli to attempt to justify negro slavery 
as an excejtJomU institution. It is the only form of slavery 
which has excited the prejudices of mankiud, and given rise 
to abolition ; the onlj' kind of slavery which has not been, 
until recently, universal. The experience, the practices, and 
the history of mankind, amply vindicate slavery, in the ab- 
stract, as a natural, universal, and conservative institution. 
In jiislitying slavery in the general or abstract, we have 
to contend with the prejudices growing out of tho African 
slave trade, out of the cruel treatment of slaves wherever 
that trade exists, and the still groafer prejudices of race and 
color. Still, it is shown by hisl'iry,botli sacred and profane, 
that domestic slavery is a natural, normal, and, till lately, 
universal institution." 

The Richmond Enquirer I will name for an- 
other 

Mr. CLAY. Will the Senator pardon ine for 
a moment? I did not hear the words, "white 
slavery," in the extract which he has read, and 
I want to know now, after reading that extract 
merely, severed from the context, by what au- 
thority he maintains that the Richmond Exam- 
intr holds to the doctrine that slaveiry is the nor- 
mal condition of the laboring classes of all races? 
I say that the very extract he has read fails to 
sustain his allegation, and I venture ' to assert 
that, if he will produce the whole article, it will 
disprove it clearly. 

[Mr. Clay here made some further remarks, 
mainly personal to himself.] 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. As to the meaning of the 
paragraph I have read, that is a question of con- 
struction between the honorable Senator and 
myself. 

Mr. CLAY. I ask for the word " white" there. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. It seems to me perfectly 
clear that the construction I give is correct. It 
elaims that slavery cannot be defended as an in- 
stitution based on negro slavery alone. The 
Richmond Enquirer took the same ground, when 
it said : 



" Until recently, the defence of slavery has labored under 
great diihcultics, because its apologists— for Ihcv were mere- 
ly apologists— took half-way ground . They conliued the de- 
fence of slavery to mere negro slavery, thereby giving up 
the slavery principle, admitting other forms of slavery to bo 
wroiip, and yielding up the authority of th.; Hible, and of tho 
history, practices, and experience of inankimi. Ilumau es- 
p<'rience, showing tho universal success of slave society, an4 
the universal lailure of free society, was unavailing to them, 
liecause they were precluded from employing it by admit- 
ting Slavery in the abstract to be wrong. Tho defence of 
mere negro slavery invulvi'd tbem in still greater difllculty. 

"The lino of defence, however, is now chaneod. Tho 
South"— ' . " 

The editor undertakes to speak for the South — 

" Tlic South now maintain.s that slavery is right, natural, 
and nece,ssary. It shows that all Divine aud almo.st all hu- 
man authority justifies it. Tlio .^uth further iliargcs that 
the little experiment of tree society in Western EuroiH! boa 
been from the beginning a cruel lailure, and that symptoms 
of failure are abundant in our North. While it is far more 
(■bvious that negroes be slaves than wjjitos — lor Ihcy are 
only tit to Uibor, not to direct — yet the prinoipio of Slavfy 
is in itsel right, and docs not depend on difference of com- 
plexion." 

Mr. Johnson a distinguished gentleman from 
Georgia, in a speech delivered in the city of 
Philadelphia in 185G, said, subsianiiully, that 
the ground on which the South now stands is, 
that capital shotild own and not hire its labor. 

But, Mr. President, it is not material to my 
present purpose to inquire how many or how 
few of the men of the South now maintain these 
views. Most certainly, I shall not stand here to 
question .for one moment the sincerity of those 
gentlemen who disclaim such extreme opinions, 
and maintain, as they now do, that slavery 
should be conlined to the negro race alone. I 
take them at their word, and accept precisely 
what they now say. Their position is, that sla- 
very is a blessing, an institution upproved of 
God, and to be maintained by man. That I un- 
derstand to be the ground upon which the gen- 
tlemen now stand. Well, sir, that is substan- 
tially all that I intended to say in the beginning, 
when I was interrupted, in order to show that 
the South have changed their ground on thij 
question of slavery — negro slavery, if you please. 
How lo«gis it since the leading men of the South, 
and in all the Stat?s of the South, their judges 
upon the benches of their Supreme Courts, their 
statesmen in Congress and out of Congress, took 
the ground which the Richmond Enquirer stated 
was taken by the South, that slavery was an 
evil to be apologized for, to be borne as a neces- 
sity, rather than bear somethinjc worse? How 
long is it since they have taken the ground that 
slavery is a positive good ; a divine institution, 
on which you may ask the blessing of the church 
and the Iiloss-ing of Heaven? It has all come up 
within the last few years, under tie lead of Mr. 
Calhoun ; there is no disputing this fact. 

Sir, but the other day, in this very Senate, th 
Senator from Virginia, [Mr. IlfNTKU,] in spe 
ing of the course which had been pursued 
Lelcher, the lately-elected Goverrror of V, 
in relationvto some speech or doctrines t 
been promulgated in Western Vir(;inia, sta 
here and stated the fact frankly, in substan 
I speak from memory — that we in Virginia have 
changed our grounfi ; we do not stand where we 
stood anciently ; we do not stand where our fa^ 
thers stood upon this slavery question ; as much 




■^I^^?^ 




aa to say, we do not believe in what Washington 
believed, and Jefferson believed, and Madison 
believed, and Monroe believed, and all the lead- 
ing men of Virginia, for the first fifty years of our 
existence under the Constitution, believed ; we 
have changed our opinion in Virginia, and in- 
stead of now admitting that slavery is an evil, 
to be restricted and discouraged, and which we 
may hope and pray may be some day entirely re- 
moved from the Republic, we now take the 
ground that it is a blessing, to be fostered, en- 
couraged, and extended, as a benefit to the black 
man and a benefit to the white. Mr. President, 
I do not find fault with gentlemen when they 
change their opinions 

Mr. MAiSON. Will the Senator allow me to in- 
terrupt him? 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Certainly. 

Mr. MASON. The Senator, I presume, in re- 
ferring to a Senator from Virginia, referred to my 
colleague. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I did. 

Mr. MASON. 1 have not a very distinct recol- 
lection of what opinions he advanced on the oc- 
casion to which the Senator alludes. I presume 
he alludes to a debate during the present session. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MASON. I think, however, that he has 
been quoted by the honorable Senator, substan- 
tially, correctly. Certainly, I believe that be- 
cause of the aggressions committed by the ser- 
vile States, commonly called the free States, 
upon the condition of African bondage in the 
South, the mind of the South has been more 
turned toward it, and by reason of that further 
consideration, more deliberation, pondering more 
deeply upon the relations subsisting between the 
African race in this country and the white race, 
the opinion once entortained, certainly in my 
own State, by able and distinguished men and 
patriots, that the condition of African slavery 
was one more to be deplored than to be foster- 
ed, has undergone a change, and that. the uni- 
form — I might almost say universal — sentiment 
in my own State upon the subject of African 
bondage is, that it is a blessing to both races, 
one to be encouraged, cherished, and fostered; 
and to that extent the opinion of Virginia is dif- 
ferent from the opinion entertained by those dis- 
tinguished men who have now gone, but who, 
we believe, best knowing their sentiments, if 
they lived in this day would concur with us. 
That is the present opinion. I was not present 
when this debate arose, and I am at some loss to 
know how this question of the merits or demerits 
of the condition of African bondage has arisen 
in the Senate of the United States, for it is a 
question I should think purely abstract, and with 

" ' b we have nothing to do. [See Note B.] 
. DOOLITTLE. Mr. President, the honor- 
enator who has just taken his seat was 
present when the debate arose. This dis- 
ssion has grown up and become, in its nature, 
somewhat conversational, in consequence of my 
having been interrupted several times, having 
made in the outset a general remark on this 
subject of slavery, that the men of the South 
had latterly taken different ground from that 



heretofore occupied by them, and the honorable 
Senator from Virginia now confirms the state- 
ment which I made, for which I am much obliged 
to the honorable Senator. I take it that it must 
be conceded that the same opinions are not to- 
day entertained on the subject of slavery, us an 
abstract question, among the leading men of the 
South, which were entertained for the first fifty 
years of the existence of this Government under 
the Constitution of the United States. This rev- 
olution is fundamental, and if we go to the very 
bottom of it, we shall find that it is based upon 
the idea recently adopted, as the honorable gen- 
tleman from Virginia has now stilted, that negro 
slavery is right, a blessing to both races, black 
and white. The churches of the South, the 
schools of the South, the public press of the 
South, the Legislatures of the South, and the 
statesmen of the South, to-day maintain that 
doctrine. From this comparatively new idea 
have proceeded all those struggles which have 
agitated the country for the last ten years. 
Claiming to lg||a positive good, slavery becomes, 
of necessity, aggressive. It demands — 

First, that the power of Congress to restrict or 
limit its expansion shall be given up ; 

Secondly, that the people of a Territory shall 
have no power to limit or exclude it; and 

Thirdly, that by a decree of the Supreme Court, 
which the President declares to be irrevocable, 
the Constitution, of its own force, guaranties the 
right to take and bold slaves, under its protec- 
tion, in all the Territories we now have, or may 
hereafter ever acquire. 

1 do not complain of gentlemen who may 
change their opinions. It is any man's right — 
more, sir, duty — to-change his opinion when con- 
vinced of error ; but what I complain of is this : 
that when you have changed your opinions, you 
insist that we shall also change our opinions, 
and take the same new grounds which you now 
take ; and say, that if we of the free States, whom 
you sometimes call the majority in this Confed- 
eracy, shall still maintain the same opinions 
which our fathers maiutaineJ, and your fathers 
maintained, and upon which you have but re- 
cently changed your own views, and shall hon- 
estly exercise our political rights, and elect a 
President qf the United States, as we legally 
may, who concurs with us in our opinion that 
slavery is an evil, and ought not to be extended 
into the Territories, you propose, some of you 
propose, to break up the Government. I do not 
refer, of course, to the honorable Senator from 
Virginia on my left ; but there are those here and 
other men standing in high places who declare be- 
fore the world, that unless we do acquiesce in this 
change of opinion upon this question, politically 
and judicially, unless we acquiesce-in this doc- 
trine, and take the ground which Mr. Buchanan 
has taken in his mesrago, thio Government is to 
be broken in pieces, and the Constitutioa over- 
thrown. If we, being in a majority, still hold to 
the opinions of those who made the Constitution, 
you will destroy the Constitution. If we. being 
in a majority, shall still cherish the opinions of 
those who formed the Union, you will dissolve 
the Union. Now, sir, we have & right to complain 



^•^^■§7 



of that. You are to convince us by argument, 
and if you can do so, it is well enough. We 
luive iKt objection to any argument addressed to 
our understanding, to convince us of our error; 
but when that argument is to be accompanied by 
a threat that th*^ Government itself is to be de- 
stroved unless we accede to this new opinion 
which yol^ yourselves have recently formed, we 
have ft right to complain. I repeat, sir, and we 
do cotnplain. 

Mr. President, so much has been said in rela- 
tion to the decision of the Supreme Court of the 
United States in the Dred Scott case, that I de- 
sire to submit a few words on that subject also. 
I do not deny the power of that courr, in any 
case of which it his jurisdiction, to make a final 
decision in that particular case ; but if, in the 
course of that adjudication, the judges of the 
court give expression to an ophiion bearing upon 
apolitical question, I deny that that opinion has 
any binding force whatever upon us, as members 
of the Senate, or upon the President ofthe United 
States, acting in his capacity as President, either 
to approve or disapprove the legislation of Con- 
gress. This Supreme Court have power to de- 
cide a case over which they liave jurisdiction, 
because there is no other tribunal to which an 
appeal can be«tnade ; and, in a case of that kind, 
their decision is final and binding upon the par- 
ties to the suit. Their rights, under the decis- 
ion, become vested ; but that any opinion which 
they may express, in the course of that adjudica- 
tion, is or ought to control the political or the 
legislative action of the members of this body, 
or the political action of the peojjle of the United 
States, I deny altogether, as the most dangerous 
of all doctrines ever promulged on the floor 
of the Senate or elsewhere. 'Jrant to this Su- 
preme Court, composed of judges irresponsible 
to the people, and appointed for life, this power 
of constructioncver theConstitution, and, though 
the mec upon that bench were angels instead of 
men, there would be established in this Govern- 
ment an oligarchy as despotic as it would be 
irresponsible. It was John Randolph, I think, 
who made that most significant remark, "the 
Book of Judges comes before the Book of Kings." 

The business of a court is not to make or un- 
make laws or Constitutions. Their business is 
simply to decide the rights of parties. In ar- 
riving at that decision, they may and must pass 
on the law itself before they can apply it ; but 
they pass upon the question of law merely as the 
means of arriving at their decision, as mcidental 
to the duty which they have to perform in deci- 
ding the rights of the parties. The court may 
decide right or wrong; and whether they decide 
right or wrong, if there is no appeal from their 
decision, the parties iathat particular case are 
bound by the decision, notwithstanding ; and the 
rights acquired under it, whether they are based 
on a right decision or a wrong decision, become 
fixed and vested, because there is no appeal to 
any other human tribunal. 

But, Mr. Buchanan says, "the status of a Ter- 
ritory " "has been irrevocably fixed by the final 
iecision of the Supreme Court." Yes, sir, irrev- 
ocably fixed^ that is the wordl Sir, suppose this 



court should change its opinion to-morrow; 
would that change the Constitution? Suppose 
that, in any new case coming before it this 
same question of constitutional power should be ■ 
again discussed, and the court should do as 
this court has often done, and as other courts no 
less able and distinguished have done a thousand 
times in the history of judicial proceedings, over- 
rule their own former opinion, would that cbungw 
the Constitution ? Not at all, sir ; the Constitu- 
tion would remain the same. I protest against 
this monstrous doctrine ; and especially when it ■^ 
is promulged by the leaders of the Democratic 
party of the United States. That was not the % 
Democratic doctrine when General Jackson was 
President, and Chief Justice Taney was hia Sec- 
retary. That was not the doctrine in relation to 
the constitutionality of the United States Bank. 
The Supreme Court once decided that a bank 
was constitutional. Who believes, if that ques- 
tion was presented to tluit court to-day, that it 
would decide that a Bank of the United States 
was constitutional? 

The decision of judges is, after all, but an 
opinion of men; an opinion whicli nmst neces- 
sarily be acquiesced in by the parlies whose 
rights are determined ; but it is not an opinion 
to be acquiesced in either by the legal profession, 
or by political parties, or by the Senate of the 
United States acting in its oliicial capaciiy. Such 
opinions are to be treated respeciluUy, as the 
0[>inions of other respectable men ; but when 
we come to act in our capacity as Senators of 
the United States, we do not bow down to the 
opinion w hich may have been delivered in the 
Dred Scott case, or in any other case, by the Su- 
preme Court of the United States, or of any State 
in this Union. We are reduced to a very strange 
state of things, if the mere tiictum or opinion 
of any court is to be received, to control the 
action of the Legislative body of the Govern- 
ment, or to control the action of great political 
parties. 

Without discussing the question, which has 
been often referred to, whether the Supreme 
Court had or had not jurisdiction over the quos- 
tion of the constitutionality of the Missouri com- 
promise, I desire, for a few moments, to call 
your attention to the history of the legislation 
of this Government bearing on that question; 
and I undertake to show that ev'eiy Administra- 
tion of the Government of the United States, be- 
ginning with Washington, and coming down to 
the close of the Administration of James Iv. Polk, 
yes sir, that every Administration, upon their offi- 
cial oaths, asserted and exercised the power of 
Congress to legislate on the subject of slavery in 
the Territories, and to legislate by way of re- 
striction. To go back to the Administration of 
Washington, the ordinance of the Confederation 
of 1787 was re-enacted, under the Constitution, 
during his Administration, and received his offi- 
cial signature. It was the eighth act, I believe, 
which ever passed the Congress of the United 
States, which thus gave constitutional sanction 
and validity to that great measure against sla- 
very extension. In the Administration of John 
Adams, Indiana was organized, in which ihi/t 



same provision was re-enacted. Come down to 
the Administration of Mr. Jefferson, wlao was 
the apostle and leader of the great Republican 
party of this country. To say nothing of the 
organic act of the Territory of Michigan approved 
by him, which re-enacted the ordinance of 1787, 
excluding slavery forever, I come, at once, to 
the organization of the Territory of Orleans — a 
Territory which was acquired by treaty from 
France, in which the institution of slavery 
existed under the laws of France. The tenth 
section of the act organizing that Territory 
provided that the foreiyn slave trade, and also 
that the domestic slave trade, sliould not be per- 
mitted in that Territory. Although that pro- 
vision of the Constitution, which was to take 
effect in isOS, giving Congress the power to 
put an end to the slave trade in the existing 
States, had not yet taken effect, yet in 1804, 
four years before that time, in the bill or- 
ganizing the Territory of Orleans, the foreign 
slave trade was prohibited ; so, too, was the do- 
mestic slave trade prohibited, and no man was 
permitted to take a slave into the Territory of 
Orleans for sale at all, and no slave could be 
taken into that Territory, except by a bona fide 
owner removing into the Territory for actual 
settlement. Here, even in the Territory of 
Orleans, where slavery existed when we ac- 
quired it, Congress exercised the power of 
legislation upon the subject of slavery, and ex- 
ercised it by way of restriction. 1 do not say 
that it exercised all its power; I do not say that 
Congress did all that it could do to prevent sla- 
very going into that Territory; but Congress 
did legislate on that subject, and did legislate 
by way of restriction. It provided that, if any 
man took a slave into the Territory for sale, or 
if any man took a slave into the Territory unless 
he was actually emigrating into the Territory, 
and took the slave as a part of his settlement 
with him, the slave should be emancipated — 
emancipated by act of Congress — and the man 
who was guilty of a violation of itS provisions 
should pay a fine of i?300. 

Mr. COLLAMER. Will the gentleman indulge 
me a moment? 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Certainly. 

Mr. COLLAMER. In that same act, in rela- 
tion to the Territory of Orleans, it was further 
provided that slaves should not be taken into 
that Territory, either for sale or in families, if 
they had been imported into the United States 
since 1798. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I am obliged to my honor- 
able friend from Vermont. I accept the correc- 
tion, and the fact is important. I would read 
the section of the act, bat I do not desire to take 
up the time which would be necessary to do so. 

[Mr. PuGH, in the course of debate, in reply, 
having given his construction to the act organi- 
zing Orleans Territory, Mr. Doolittle said : 

Mr. President, that the gentlet,ian and myself 
may have no misunderstanding about the ques- 
tion of what is provided in the law, I now read 
the section. 

Mr. PuGH. Well; read it, and see if I am 
not right. 



Mr. Doolittle. Here it is. I read from the 
Orleans act : 

" Sec. 10. It shall not be lawful for any person or persons 
to import or bring into the said Territory, from any port or 
place without the limits of the Uniteil .States, or cause or pro- 
cure to be so imported or brought, or knowingly to aid or 
assist in so importing or bringing, any slave or slaves. And 
every per.sou so ollouding, and, bemg thereof convicted be- 
fore any court Within s;iiu Tergtory, having com4)etet\t juris- 
diction, shall lorloit and pay, for each and ovory slave so 
imported or brought, the s;au of $300 ; one moiety for the 
use of the United auiles, and the other moiety for the use of 
the person or persons who shall sue lor the same ; and every 
slave go imported or brought shall thereujxjn become entitled 
to, and receive, his or her freedom. It shall not be lawful 
for any person or jtcrsons to import or bring into the said 
Territory, from any port or place within tho limits of the 
United Stjitos, or to cause or procure to be so imported or 
brought, or knowingly to aid or assist in so importing or 
bringing, any slave or slaves, which shall have been import- 
ed since the 1st day of May, 179S, into any port or place 
within the limit,s of the United Ijtates, or which may hereaf- 
ter be so imported, from any port or place without tho limits 
of the Uuiliid ^tat<,-s ; Sud every person so ollending, and 
being thereVif convicted be-'oro any court within said Terri- 
tory, having competent jurisdiction, shall forfeit and pay, for 
each and every slave so imported or brought, the sum of 
$:jOO ; one moiety lor the use of the Cuilrfd ritiites, and tho 
other moiety iV'r the use ot tUo person or persons who shall 
sue for the s;ime." 

And, now, I will call the Senator's attention 
to what follows. Those are the two cases to 
which he has referred : 

" And no slave or slaves shall directly or indirectly be in- 
troduced into said Tjcrntory , e.xcept by a citizen ol the Uni- 
ted .'States removing into said Territory for actual settlement, 
and being, at the time of such removal, a Ixma fide owner oi 
s u"h slave or slaves ; and every slave, imiwrted or brought 
into the said Territory contrary to the i)rovision3 of this act, 
shall thcreupou be entitled to, and receive, his or her free- 
dom." 

What I stated in relation to the Orleans Ter- 
ritory was this : that Congress exercised the 
power, not only to prevent the foreign slave 
trade, and f.o provent, as my friend from Vermont 
also stated, the bringing into the Territory slaves, 
from any of the States, either for sale or in fam- 
ilies, that hnd been imported into the United 
States after 1798, but also to put an end to the 
entire domestic slave trade ; and while I said 
that Congress did not do all that it had the 
power to do to prevent slaves going into that 
Territory, Congress did legislate by way of re- 
striction, not allowing any man to take a slave 
into the Territory for sale ; allowing no m.an to 
take a .-lave into the Territory unless he was 
bona fide removing for settlement, and taking his 
slaves with hiiu as a part of his settlement ; and 
not even then, unless imported before 1798. That 
is the substance of what I stated, and the section 
which I have read bears me out entirely.] 

Again, sir.in tha cession from North Carolina, 
it was provided that Congress should make no 
regulation tending to the emancination of slaves. 
Why insert such a provision, if Congress had no 
such power? 

Mr. President, when do we first hear of this 
celebrated doctrine, which has made so much 
figure before the American people within the last 
six or eight years, of Territorial independence, 
squatter sovereignty, or whatever it may be term- 
ed, the absolute right of a Territory, just as soon 
as it is organized, to legislate for itself upon all 
matters of internal concern, independent of the 
control of Congress ? During the Administration 



^,;*ji,'V«-;»i... 



7. 



*f Mr. Jefferson, Mr. St. Clair, then Governor of 
the Northwestern Territory, first broached this 
doctrine, that the moment a Territory is once or- 
ganized, that moment it becomes, a State, inde- 
pendent of the action of Congress, with sovereign 
power to legislate for itself, in an address, in this 
language : 

" For aU internal affairs, we have a complete Legislature 
of our own, and tUcy are no more bpund by an act of Con- 
gress than by an edict of the First Consul of France." 

President Jefferson, through Mr. Madison, as 
Secretary of State, met this doctrine in this 
style ; he addressed Mr. St. Clair the following 
note: 

" SiK : The President, observing in an address lately de- 
livered by you to the Convention at Chiiicothe an intemper- 
ance and indecorum of langu.ige towards the Legislature of 
the United States, and a disoiganiziug spirit and tendency of 
very evil example, and grossly violating; the rules of conduct 
enjoined by your public station, dcti^nninos that your com- 
mission of Governor of Cho Northwestern Territory shall 
cease on the receipt of this notilicaliuu." 

Mr. PUGH. I would ask the Senator where he 
got that extract from Governor St. Clair's speech. 
Did he ever read the whole speech ? 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. No, I have not read the 
whole speech ; but I have read, as I suppose, the 
substance of it. 

Mr. PUGH. It shows that the Senator had 
better have done it. Governor St. Clair was not 
speaking of that question at all, but he was en- 
deavoring to persuade the Convention of the 
people of Ohio, met to form a State Constitution, 
to trample under foot the enabling act of Con- 
gress. It had uothiog to do with the Territorial 
Government. It was a speech delivered in Chiii- 
cothe, in 1802. 

[Some further colloquy ensued, and Mr. Doo- 
LiTTLE resumed. See Note D.] 

During Mr. Jefl'erson's Administration, there 
occurred another memorable event, bearing upon 
this subject, never to be forgotten. The Terri- 
tory of Indiana petitioned Congress to repeal the 
Slavery restriction. It was refused by Mr. Jef- 
ferson's Administration. The petition was re- 
terred to a committee, of which John Randolph 
was chairman, who reported against it, declaring 
that it was " highly dangerous and inexpedient to 
impair a provision wisely calculated to promote 
the growth and prosperity of the Northwest Ter- 
ritory." 

If you pass on from the organization of the 
Territory of Orleans, and come down to the or- 
ganization of the Territory of Illinois in 1809, 
and again of Missouri in 1812, in the Adminis- 
tration of Mr. Madison, the same power of Con- 
gress was recognised and exerc.ised, though not 
to the extent of entire exclusion from the last. 
Pass down to the Administration of Mr. Monroe, 
when the Missouri compromise was passed. 
When the question of its constitutionality was 
before Mr. Monroe, he summoned his Cabinet to- 
gether, and took their opinions ; and they gave 
their unanimous opinions in favor of the power of 
Congress to exclude slavery from the Territories 
of the United States. Upon that subject, I beg 
leave to read an extract from the diary of John 
Quincy Adams, then Secretary of State : 

" March 3, 1820. — When I came this day to my office, I 
faund tttere a note, requesting me to call at one o'clock at 



the President's House. It was then one, and I immcd;:itcly 
went over. He expected that the two bilLs. forlbo admis- 
sion of Maine and to enable Missouri to make a Constitution, 
would have been brought to him for his signature ; and be 
had summoned all the members of thuAdmiuislrutlon, to ask 
their opinions in writing, to be deixisitcd in the Department 
of State, upon two questions : 1. Whellior Congre."w hud a 
constitutional right to prohibit slavitry hi a Territory ; and, 
2. Whether the eighth .section of the M"isSi)uri bill (which in- 
terdicts slavery forever in the territory north of ao degrees • 
3U minutes latitude) was applicable only to the Territorial 
State, or would e.'ctend to it after it sh' u'ld become a Slate. 
.\s to the first questiiin, it was unanimously agrcrd ttut 
Congress have the power to prohibit slavery In iho Territo- 
ries. " 

I repeat it, sir, the Cabinet of Mr. Monroe were 
unanimously of opinion that Congress had the 
power to prohibit slaverj in a Territory ; and in ' 
that Cabinet were William Wi;t, Willium H. 
Crawford, and John C. Calhoun. 

Mr. CHESNUT. I think it is due to tfi.e mem- 
ory of Mr. Calhoun to state what I believe to be 
known to most Senatois, and is according to my 
recollection, that upon the lloor of the Senate, 
in response to this charge, made ijy the Senator 
from Missouri, Mr. Benton, he denied ever having 
given such an opinion in relation to the .Missouri 
compromise. 1 state that much, as due to the 
memory of Mr. Calhorn. 

Mr. HAMLIN. If my friend from Wisconsin 
will allow me a moment, 1 will stale that I recol- 
lect very wull the denial to which the Si»nator 
from South Carolina has alluded. Mf. Calhoun 
did, upon the floor of the Senate, make that de- 
nial ; but I also recollect that a Senator of this 
body at that time, .Mr. Dix, of New York, obtain- 
ed from the State Department what purported to 
be an abstract from the envelope in which those 
opinions were enclosed. The opinions themselves 
were not found. 

Mr. PUGH. And never have been. 

Mr. HAMLIN. But the envelope was found in 
the Department. 

[See Appendix, Note C] 

[Mr. PuGH (among other things) said : I said 
the other day, and I have said it many times 
here and elsewhere, that I was in favor of main- 
taining the principle of the Missouri compromise 
irp to the time that California formed her State 
Constitution ; not that I believed it to be consti- 
tutional, but it having been tried be fore the adop- 
tion of the Constitution, and having been acqui- 
esced in, and being the shortest way to make 
peace, I was in favor of extending the Missouri- 
compromise line to the Pacific ocean up to the 
time that the State of California formed a State 
Government. That drove me to the other doc- 
trine of non-intervention and popular sovereign- 
ty. Therefore it i^ in vain for the gentleman to 
cite the Missouri compromise, or any of its co- 
rollaries. 

Mr. DooLiTTLE. I have discussed simply the 
question of constitutional power, not of expedi- 
ency. I ask the honorable Senator whether, in 
his opinion, he can go for anything which is un- ' 
constitutional, if it is expedient? 

Mr. PuGH. No, sir. 

Mr. Do')LiTTLE. I discussed the simple ques- 
tion of the constitutionality of the power of Con- 
gress on that subject, not of expediency. '. 

Mr. PuGu. Does the Senator see no differ- 
ence between a power of universal prohihilioa 



and a power of division ? Caa be see uo differ- 
ence between an act of Congress that provides 
tb.it no slaves shall be taken into any Territory, 
and an act of Congress which divides the Terri- 
tory equally between the slaveholding and non- 
slaveholding States? la it possible that the Sen- 
ator sees no distinction? If so, I despair of en- 
lightening him. 

Mr. DooLiTTLE. Mr. President, I was speak- 
ing of the constitutional power of Congress to 
legislate upon and exclude slavery from the 
Territories ; and if it has the constitutional power 
_-te exclude ten slaves, it haa the constitutional 
power to exclude ten thousand, or exclude them 
all. If it has the power to exclude slavery from 
half the Territory, it has the power to exclude it 
from the whole. I was simply arguing the ques- 
tion of constitutiotial power; and while I admit 
that, in reference to some of the Southern Terri- 
tories, Congress did not, in the exercise of its 
constitutional power, do all that it had a right to 
do, yet it did exercise a portion of that power by 
way of limitation even of slavery, in the slave- 
)iolding Territories of the South. On the que.!?- 
tion of power, there is no difference whether we 
exclude half or exclude the whole, or from half, 
or the whole of the Territory.] 

The bill received the signature of Presiden 
Monroe, who thus, upon his official oath, assert- 
ed and exercised the constitutional power of ex- 
cluding slavery from the 'territories. 

But let us pass on from 1820, and come down 
at once to General Jac"kson's Administration. 
1 understand General Jackson to be good Dem- 
ocratic Republican authority. He certainly was 
when 1 belonged to the Democratic Republican 
I-arty of this country, although many whom I 
now see upon the otlier side of the Chamht>r, 
standard-bearers of the Democracy of to-day, 
were not then enrolled within its rank?. I do 
not refer to my honorable friend from Alabama, 
[Mr. FiTZPATRiOK.] In 183G, Wisconsin was or- 
ganized as a Territory, and this same provision 
for slavery restriction was reincorporated in tiie 
bill for its organization; and, to show how little' 
GeneralJackson and his Administration thought 
of this new dogma, that the moment a Territory 
is organized. Congress has no longer any power 
over its legislation, I will refer you to some facts 
which took place during his Administration. 

The Territorial Legislature of Florida and tb» 
Territorial Legislature of Wisconsin assumed the 
power to incorporate certain banking institutions. 
During the Administration of General Jackson, a 
law was introduced into Congress, and passed 
both houses and received his signature, repeal- 
ing those bank charters ; and it went further, and 
declared that uo Territorial Legislature should 
have power to incorporate a bank without the 
consent of Congress. This shows what bethought 
of this idea that Territories, from the moment 
they are organized, become sovereign, and inde- 
pendent of the control of Congress. Such an 
idea was never dreamed of by the Democratic 
party in its better days. 

But again, sir, Iowa ^ as organized in 1838, 
during Mr. Van Buren's Administration, and the 
next jeaxi I believe, there was an act passed to 



alter and amend the organic acts of WisconBin 
and Iowa; and what was that alteration ? Up 
to that time, 1839, the Governor of a Territory 
always had an absolute veto on every law passed 
by a Territorial Legislature. The Governor not 
only had the right to veto it absolutely, but it 
was made his duty if he approved a bill to sub- 
mit it to Congress, to be approved or disapproved 
by Congress before it should take any effect ; but 
in 1839, the Territorial organic acts of Wiscon- 
sin and Iowa were amended, and it was provi- 
ded that the veto power of the Governor should 
be reduced from an absolute veto to a veto re- 
quiring but two-thirds of both branches of the 
Legislature to pasa a bill over it; but in the 
second section of that act it was expressly pro- 
vided that 

" This act shall not be po construed as to deprive Congress 
of the right todisapprovo of any Inwpiisscd by the said Leg- 
islative Assembly, or in ayiy way to impair or alkr the power 
iif Cvnyrcss over lawspoiitd Oysaid AtsemUy." 

Where was this new dogma of Territorial sot- 
ereiguly then ? Sir, it had never seen the light. 
No man of standing in the country had ever dream- 
of it at that time, unless it be Arthur St. Clair, 
homandof whose fate, I have already spoken, 
power of Congress to control the legislation of 

e Territories was an admitted povfer, exercised 
by all Administrations. contended for by all par- 
ties in this Government from the beginning down 
to the period of which I speak. But, sir, I stop 
not there. Coming down still later, to the Ad- 
ministration of James K. Polk, when Mr. Bu- 
chanan was Secretary of State, Oregon was or- 
ganized, and the same provision was inserted in 
the organic act of that Territory, by which sla- 
very was prohibited therein forever. 

It is true, therefore, as I have stated, that in 
the history of this Government, from the Admin- 
istration of Washington to 1847, to the close of 
Mr. Polk's Administration, every Administration 
from the beginning has not only asserted, but, 
upon its official oath and responsibility, it has 
exercised, the power to legislate for the Territo- 
ries over their internal concerns — not only upon 
their local concerns generally, but upon the sub- 
ject of slavery, and to legislate by way of re- 
striction. 

Mr. PUGH. Does the Senator mean to say 
that that was the opmion of President Polk ? 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. He signed the bill, and 
when he signed the bill 

Mr. PUGH. I ask the Senator if he is aware 
of the fact that Mr. Poljt brought to the Capitol 
a message to vet othe Wilmot proviso, and that 
it is in existence now? He brought it to the 
Capitol, and would have vetoed the bill, and the 
message is in existence. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The facts, I believe, are 
these : Mr. Polk, at one time, contemplated veto- 
ing the Oregon bill. He subsequently sent n 
special message to the Congress of the United 
States, in which he stated, in substance, that if 
the Territory of Oregon had reached below 30" 
30^, he would have vetoed the bill^not because 
Congress had not the power, but on the simple 
ground of expediency, that he "was in favor of 
extending the compromiBe line of 3C° 30^ U> the 



Pacific ocean. That is the gronnd on which he 
placed it. 

Mr. PUGH. That is not the fact to which I 
CMJled the Senator's attention. 

}[v. DOOLITTLE. I will ask the Senator, do 
you say that Mr. Polk, in that message, denied 
the power of Congress ? 

Mr. PUGH. He did. I was going to tell the 
Senator that the message to which I referred, 
the original, is endorsed in I\lk Polk's hand- 
writing : 

"I broo(i;lit this message, signed, to the Capitol, on tho 
night of the 3d of March, lS4'.t, iutuiuliiig to send it to the 
House of Kepresentiitives if they had persisted in tho amend- 
ment to the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill " — 

Which was the Wilmot proviso ; but the House 
having receded, the message never was sent in. 
The paper is in existence. Large extracts of it 
have been published within the last month in 
the papers. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I shall be obliged to the 
honorable gentleman if he will produce the mes- 
sage, and point out tUe paragraph in it in which 
Mr. Polk denies the power of Congress to legis- 
late upon the subject of shivery in the Territo- 
ries. 

Mr. PUGH. The first sentence says it. I will 
get the Senator the message. 

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Get it, if you please. The 
special message which he sent to Congress at 
the subsequent session, afier approving of the 
Oregon bill, stated, as I understand it, the 
grounds on which lie would have vetoed the Ore- 
gon bill if that Territory had extended below 
36° 30', not upon the ground of constitutional 
power, -43Ut upon expediency. If, however, Mr. 
Polk has written a message declaring that the 
bill was unconstitutional, and has affixed his sig- 
nature to a bill which he considered unconstitu- 
tional, that does not alter the fact wiiich I sta- 
ted, that every Administration has asserted, and 
has exercised upon its official oath and respon- 
sibility, the power yf legislating on the subject 
of slavery iu the Territories of the United Slates, 
from Washington down to the close of Mr. Polk's 
Administration ; although, if the Senator from 
Ohio is correct, it would place Mr. Polk under a 
very grave imputation. I think, however, he must 
be mistaken. 

[Mr. PuGH (in the course of the subsequent 
deOate) said : I believe the gentleman claims 
nothing under Tyler. 

Mr. DooLiTTLE (in reply to that) said: It ia 
true I did not refer to Mr. Tyler's Administration 
when Mr. Calhoun was Secretary of State, but I 
will refer Senators to it now, to show that Con- 
gress went even further than they did ia any 
other Administration. In the Texas joint reso- 
lutions of admission, this language will be found : 

" New States, of convenient size, and not exceeding four 
Ic number, in addition to the Sjild State of Texas, and having 
sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent ol said 
State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be 
entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal 
Constitution. And such States as may be formed out of that 
portion of said territory lying south ol 36 degrees 30 minutes 
north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri-compro- 
mise line, shall be admitted into the Union with or without 
slavery, as the people of each Pt;ite asking admission may 
desire. And iu such State or f-tatos as shall he formed out 
of said territory north of said Missouri-compromise line, sla- 



very, or involuntary servitude, (except forcrimes,) shall bo 

prohibited." 

Mr. Tyler and his Administration went so far 
as to prohibit slavery in the States.] 

[Mr. PuGii again, in the course of the subse- 
quent debate upon this point said, among other 
things : 

But, sir, I have heard the Senator talk about 
what former Presidents and former Congresses 
have done. He does not open the Constitution 
of the United States, and show us this power. 
He says it existed because it has been exercised. 
Does he argue that way about other subjects? ' 
Does he go back to 1793, to the act providing 
for the reclamation of fugitive slaves, and to its 
recognition by every department of this Govern- 
ment, and by all the States, and does he say 
that it is a settled question ? Oh, no, that is not 
settled ; it is unsettled ; and I have heard the 
Senator himself get up on this floor and say that 
he did not unders'tand the Constitution of the 
United States to vest iu Congress any power to 
provide for the reclamation of fugitives from 
service. 

To which Mr. Doouttle replied : The difierenCe 
between the honorable Senator and myself is 
simply this : he can argue words out of the in- 
strument, or words into the instrument, at his 
pleasure ; I cannot do it. The clause of the 
Constitution in reference to fugitives from ser- 
vice does not say that Congress shall have the 
power to legislate on that subject at all ; it says 
no such thing. It simply says that a State shall 
not, by any act of its own, discharge from service a 
fugitive who may be held to service under the 
laws of another State ; and I tell the gentleman 
that, as an originul question, coming up for dis- 
cussion, any good lawyer and strict construction- 
ist of the Constitution will say, as I say, that the 
Constitution of the United States does not, ia • 
I hat clause, give to Congress any power to leg- 
islate at all. But in rcJation to the other clause 
of the Constitution to which I have referred, it 
expressly says Congress shall have the power. 
That is the difference. In the one case it does not 
say it where the gentleman says it has the power. 
In the other case, where he denies the power, 
and 1 insist that Congress has it, the Constitu- 
tion says it shall have the power. Now, let us 
see th(se clauses. I have heard of a man being 
able to argue the seal off a bond in a court of 
justice 

Mr. PuoH. I wish the Senator would read his 
passage, for I am very anxious to conclude my 
remarks. I am willing to hear it. 

Mr. DooLiTTi.K. The clause in relation to fu- 
gitives escaping from service is as follows : 

" No person held to service or Jabor in one State, under 
the laws llicreof, escaping into another, sliall, in consequence 
of any law or regulation therein, bo discharged from such 
service or labor, but shall bo delivered up on claim of ihc 
party to whom sueh service or labor way be due." 

Now, there is no power given to Congress to 
legislate on that subject. It does inhibit the 
power of a State to legislate in a certain way, ' 
and any law or any proceed'ng on the part-of a 
State which has the eifect to discharge the ft;f»- 
tive from labor, is unconstitutional and void, by 
the Constitution of the United States; and every 



10 



State court, every State judge, and every judge 
of ihe Supreme Court, is boun;l so to declare it. 
That is the true construction of this clause. But 
in relation tQ the other clause the language is : 

" Tho Congress shall have power to (lisjiose of and make 
all ncodl'ul rules and regalatiou.s VcspeeUiig the territory or 
other properly belonging U» the United States." 

The Supreme Court, in i\ve diifi-rent decisions, 
beginning about 1810, and the last one in 1853 — 
just about six months before you passed your 
Nebraska bill — unanimously decideil that, this 
clause of the Constitution ga^e Congress power 
\o govern and legislate for the Territories. The 
difference between him and me is this : where I 
maintain Congress has the power, the Const itu- 
tion says it shall iiave the power ; he maintains 
it has the power where the Constitution does not 
say it. My honorable friend here ha? the faculty 
of arguing words in or arguing words out at his 
pleasure. I have never jet learned to do that.] 

Mr. DOOLITTLE (in the regular order of de- 
bate) said : 

And now, sir, let us for a single moment look 
at the question, aside from all precedent and ju- 
dicial construction, and see where we stand. 
What is the language of the Constitution: 

" Tlio Congress shall have power to dispose of and make 
all needful rules and regiilatiou.s respecting Ih'j territory or 
other property belonging to the Uaitud !?t;iCes." 

It has sometimes been said that the power 
which Congress exercises is a power over the 
territory as property merely. SiipjKjse we take 
that position, that Congress controls it as mere 
property; what then may Congress do? What 
may the owner of property do? He may sell it, 
or refuse to sell it; he may lease it, or refuse to 
lease it; he miiy sell it to a white man, to an In- 
dian, to a negro, or he may refuse to sell it to 
either ; he can lease it to one, or refuse to lease 
it to another, lie can say that the foot of a 
slave shall never tread upon it. If you concede 
that Congress can control it as jiroperty, you con- 
cede the whole ground of power; for Congress 
would then have power to keep off every China- 
man, every negro, every alien, and cohld keep 
off even our own citizens ; and Congress does 
exercise the power of keeping even our own citi- 
zens off certain portions of the public domain. 

Again, you say that Congress is to treat it as 
mere property. Well, let us view it in another 
light. What do the facts show ? Look at Wis- 
consin and Iowa, and then, at Missouri. The 
public lands of Wisconsin and Iowa have sold, 
on an average, for almost a dollar an acre ; and 
why? Because ihey were not cursed with the 
presence of a negro servile population, and 
were peopled by freemen, and by them alone. 
How was it with Missouri ? So long as it 
was understood and generally believed that 
Missouri was to be a slave State, and to remain 
a slave State, that population sought its home 
with reluctance in Missouri; and what has 
been the effect on your public lands in that 
'State of the presence of slave labor? They 
scarcely averaged twenty-five cents an acre — 
land just as good as it is in Wisconsin, just as 
good as it is in Iowa. Why ? Because Slavery 
eidsted in Missouri. So, if we aro to come down 



to the mere mercenary consideration of dollars 
and cents, and discuss this, as a question of prop- 
erty, if Congress controls the Territory as mere 
property, the question whether Slaveiy should 
go into Kansas or not, as a mcva question of 
property alone, would make S40 000,000 differ- 
ence to the people of the United States. 

But another says he believes in popular sov- 
ereignty, and therefore Congress should have no 
power to legislate for the Territories. So do I 
believe; bur 1 will tell you the kind of popular 
sovereignty that I believe in. The people of the 
United Stales, and the Slates of the Union rep- 
resented here in Congress, are the popular sov- 
ereigns in ihe Teriitories, and ihertfore Congress 
should have power to legislwle for them. The 
people who purchase the Territories, who pay 
for the Territories, who, if necessary, fight for 
the Territories ; the people who own tnem, and 
expect to settle in them, or send their children 
there ; who pay the e.xjjenses of the Legislatures, 
the judges, and the Governors of the Territo- 
ries — they are the people who are rightfully sov- 
ereign in tho Territories of the United Stales, 
and not the first band of settlers who happen to 
go there, whether from one State or from an- 
I other. It is the people and States of the whole 
United States represented in Congress who are 
sovereign there until the Territories are grown 
up to sovereignty, when the power of Congress 
over them should cea.^e, and ihey be admitted 
into the sisterhood of Stales. 

Again, sir: all must concede that Congr^ ss 
has power to pass an organic act. What is 
that but a law for the Territory — the funda- 
mental law, controlling all other Territorial 
laws ? It is equally certain that Congress can 
repeal or amend the organic act. From this con- 
sideration alone, Mr. Buchanan was right when 
he Said the " inference is irresi.stihU, thai Congress 
has the poiocr to leyislate "' for the Territories. 

But, Mr. President, to return once more to this 
Dred Scott decision. We are always bound 
to respect the final deision of any court, so 
far as the particular c-ise is concerned, for the 
parties to it are compelled to acquiesce in the 
decision, where the court have jurisdiction ; but 
as to the political opinions expressed by some 
of the judges in making that decision, I feel com- 
pelled to say, frankly, they do not command niy 
respect. This may be, perhaps, the first time 
when it is alleged that the precise question has 
arisen before the Sujireme Court of the United 
States as to the power of Cons/ress to legislate 
on the subject of slavery in the Territories, but 
it is by no means the first time the question has 
arisen before that court as to the general power, 
or the source of the constitutional power, of Con- 
gress ov6r the Territories. That question has 
been presented to the court in four or five differ- 
ent cases, running through a period ot almost 
fifty years. The first of these cases, that of Sere 
vs. Pilot, arose in 1810, and is reported in 6 
Cranch, 336. The Supreme Gourt of th' United 
Stales, without any dissenting opinion, and in 
the most explicit language, then declared : 

" The power of governing and legislating for a Tcrrili'.-y is 
the iutiviuble cous^queuca of tho right to acquire and hold 



11 



territory. Could this position be contested, the Constitution 
declares that ' Congress shall have power to dispose of and 
malio all needful rules and regulations respecting the terri- 
tory or other property belonging to the United States ; ' ac- 
cordingly, we find Congress possessing and exercising the 
absolute and undisputed power of governing and legislating 
for the Territory of Orleans." 

Sir, can any court, in stating the power which 
Congress exercises over the Territories of the 
United States, use any broader language than 
when it declares that Congress possesses and 
exercises the absolute and undisputed right of 
governing and legislating for a Territory ? 

Again, in 1828 — eighteen years afterwards — 
Canter's case, which is reported in 1 Peters, 511, 
came before the Supreme Court, and then the 
Court declared : 

" In the mean time, Florida continues to be a Territory of 
the United iStates, governed by that clause of the Constitu- 
tion which empowers Congress ' to malce all needful rules 
and regulations respecting the territory or other proiXTty 
belonging to the United t^tates.' Perhaps the power of gov- 
erning a Territory belonging to the United States, which has 
not, by becoming a St.ito, acquired the means of self-govern- 
ment, may result ncccssurily I'rom the facts that it is not 
within the jurisdiction of any particular State, and is within 
the power and jurisdietion of the United Suites. Tlie right to 
govern may be the inevitable consequence of the right to 
acquire territory. Whichever may be the source whence 
the power maybe tlerived, the possession of it is unques- 
tioned." 

• That was the language of the Supreme Court, 
with no dissenting voice. It was not the opinion 
of a bare majority, where the whole world knows 
that the court is tiivided according to its political 
opinions upon a question presented before it, but 
the unanimous opinion of the whole court, de- 
claring the power which Congress possesses and 
exercises over the Territories of the Union. 
Again, in the case of McCulIoch vs. Maryland, 4 
Wheaton, 316; and again, in 1840, in the case 
of the United States vs. Gratiot, 16 Peters, 537, 
the court, in delivering its opinion, without a 
dissenting voice, referred to this clause of the 
Constitution as the true and undoubted source 
of the power over the Territories. And what is 
a remarkable fact, which the country ought to 
know, in the judicial history of this Govern- 
ment, is, that as late as the December terra, 
1853, a very few weeks beiore the introduction 
of the Nebraska bill, and the proposition to 
repeal the Missouri compromise, the Supreme 
Court of the United States, in an opinion de- 
livered by Judge Wayne, with the unanimous 
approbation of the court, consisting of the same 
judges that pronounced the Dred Scott opinion, 
speaking of the Territory of California, said : 

" The Territory had been ceded as a conquest, and was to 
be preserved and governed as such until the sovereiguiy to 
which it had passed had legisluted tor it. That sovcieignty 
was the United .'^Uates, under the Constitution, by whicli 
power had been given to Congress ' to dispose of and make 
all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or 
other properly belonging to the United Stales.' " — Cros vs. 
Harrisons, 1(J Howard, 193. 

Here we have the unanimous opinion of the 
Supreme Court on cases arising at five different 
poriods in its history, beginning in 181), and 
coming down to- 1853, when the judges, by no 
divided opinions based upon political opinions 
or otherwise, did as our fathers did, as Washing- 
ton, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson 
did, maiatain and declare the right of Congress 



to exercise the undisputed power of legisU 
for the Territories of the United States. 

But let us now see upon what grounds thoj^in. 
avoid the effect of these decisions. They now tak>; u^ 
the ground, among others, that that clause of 
the Constitution of the United States docs not 
refer to any territory acquired since the Consti- 
tution was formed : that it only referred to the 
territory then belonging to the United States. 
That is one of the»grounds on which they place 
it ; and yet, the case coming up from Florida was 
in relation to territory acquired afterwards ; the 
case coming up from Orleans was in relation to 
territory acquired in 1803; and the last, iu rela- 
tion to California, acquired by the Mexican war 
or treaty of peace — all of it territory acquired 
since the Constitution took effect. Do not the 
majority of that court plant themselves upon a 
very narrow ground, to avoid the effect of it8 
former decisions ? 

Mr. President, when I am told by gentlemen 
that I must respect the decision of the Supreme 
Court, and that my judgment must bow beiore 
its opinion, I ask you which opinion? An opin- 
ion delivered by a divided court, in the midst of 
Intense excitement, upon a question of all others 
the ground of political strife, and made in accord- 
ance with preconceived political opinions and 
party associations ? Shall I bow my judgment 
before that opinion, or shall I hold in reverence 
the opinion of that court pronounced unanimous- 
ly by its judges, through a period of near forty 
years, in which they maintain, and declare again 
and again and again, the unquestionable and 
unquestioned power of Congress to legislate over 
the Territories of the United States? 

To the gentlemen upon the other side of the 
Chamber, I would say, in all frankness, I do not 
doubt your sincerity nor question your integrity 
when you tell me that the South has changed its 
ground on this question; but when I concede to 
you that, you must concede the same to me, and 
those who act with me on this side of the Cham- 
ber. I believe that every Administration of the 
Government, from the beginning to 1847, hasoffi- 
cially asserted and exercised this power. I, also, 
believe that not only the Supreme Court of every 
free State, but the Supreme Court of every slave 
State in this Union, that ever gave an opinion on 
the question, previous to 1847, has always main- 
tained that slavery rests upon local law, and 
local law alone ; that the Constitution is not a 
general charter to carry slavery all over the Ter- 
ritories of the Union. No case, I believe, previ- 
ous to 1847, can be found when the Supreme 
Court of any State, North or South, has taken 
the ground thttt the Constitution of the United 
States, of its own force, carries the law of sla- 
very into the Territories of the Union. They, 
and all of them, whenever they have spoken at 
all, have conceded to Congress the unquestioned 
and unquestionable power to legislate for the 
Territories of the Union, and also that slaveny 
rests only upon local law. Now, gentlemen, 
when you tell us that we must renounce our opin- 
ions, when you say to u.s in substance that the 
life-long opinions which we have entertained, 
which our fathers taught us, which your fathers 



12 



taught us iilso, wo must now surrender ; that we 
muit bow down and worship a political dogma 
which to-diiy dticlares that the Constitution of 
the United States, of its own force, carries sla- 
very into, or, what is the same thing, guaranties 
the right to take and hold slaves in, every Terri- 
tory which we now have, or may hereafter ac- 
quire, we tell gentlemen we cannot conscien- 
tiously change our opinions ; and because you 
accompany this with the declapation thac, if we 
do not change them, but will maintain and 
act upon them, and elect a man who believes in 
them President of the United Stites, vou will 
break up this Confederacy, we tell you frankly, 
gentlemen, that does not change our opinion 
either i it cannot be changed by any such argu- 
ment as that. Instead of addressing our man- 
hood, it is addressed to the want oi it; and 
we give you to understand distinctly that, on 
this question, our opinions are still unchanged, 
and this last argument, if i*, has aay elfect, 
makes them more fixed and determined. 

We still believe that freedom !•; national, that 
slavery is sectional and local, and .-esis upon lo- 
cal law alone. We do not believe that, if we 
should acquire Canada to-morrow, there is any 
such slave-extending power in the Con.stiiutiuu 
of the United States as will, of its owa forCe, at 
once repeal the laws of Canada against slavery, 
and establish it there, so that a man from Vir- 
ginia or South Carolina could tak'- his slaves at 
once into the territory of Canada, and hold ilu-m 
there, beyond the i)0wer of Congress, or any other 
human power, protected by the Federal Consti- 
tution. Nor do we believe that it has any such 
oower over the Mexican laws in the Territory 
UL Utah, California, New .Mexico, or any other 
territory' we may acquire from Mexieo, as, of its 
own force, to repeal, at once, those laws which 
abolished slavery there, and re-establish the 
law of slavery, so that you can take your slaves 
into them, without any positive law authorizing 
it, and hold them there by virtue of the Consti- 
tution. 

If this ground is conceded, where will the peo- 
ple of the North stand ? If we concede the ground 
that the Constitution of the United States, of its 
own force, would authorize you to carry slaves 
into Canada if we should purchase it to-morrow, 
the same Constitution would authorize you to 
carry it into Wisconsin, and we could not hinder 
it; and why? Before answering this question, 
perhaps I ought to say that the Supreme Court, 
in the -opinion which they have delivered, in my 
humble judgment, on a fair construction of that 
o^nion, have as yet gone no further than to 
deny to Congress and to the people of the Terri- 
tory the power to prohibit slavery; but Mr. Bu- 
chanan, in the message from which I read the 
extract, goes altogether beyond the Supreme 
Court, in ray judgment. Jlr. Buchanan assumes 
not only that neither Congress nor any other hu- 
man power has the power to prohibit its entry, 
but that the Constitution, under the decision of 
the Supreme Court, with its own positive force, 
guaranties the right to carry and hold slaves in 
the Territories which we now have or may here- 
after acquire. He says : 



" The riRht has been established of every citizen to t.iko 
Uis properly of any Icind, iuciuding slaves, into the comniou 
Territ<jries belongiijg equally to all the St;itcs oflhi! Confed- 
eracy, and to have it protected there under the Federal Cou- 

stiluiion." 

He does not stop with Chief Justice Taney and 
the judges of the Supreme Court, wlio deny that 
Congress or the Territory has the power to legis- 
late, and therefore pronounce the Missouri re- 
striction unconstitutional ; but he goes further, 
and tiudertakes to make it out that the Consti- 
tution of the United States, by its own positive 
force, guaranties slavery in all the Territories. 

But, to return to the question. If it has that 
effect in a Territory, it has it in a State. The 
Constitution of the United States was made for 
States, and not for Territories at all. It only 
mentions them to give Congress the power to 
govern them. It is the paramount law of the 
land, anything in any State Constitution or law 
to the contrary notwithstanding; and if the 
Constitution of the United States has the power 
to repeal the law against slavery in Canada, 
should we acquire it, and to guaranty the right 
to take and hold slaves there, it can repeal the 
Constitution of Wisconsin re3tri<-ting slavery, 
and guaranty the right to take and hold slaves 
there. Does not the Constitution mean the same 
thing everywhere? — the same in Wisconsin and 
in Kansas? And do you not recollect, sir, that 
the very moment the Dred Scott decision was 
pronounced, the newspaper in Washiagtoa 
wiiich chiiraed to represent the views of the Ad- 
ministration — I refer to the Union — declared that 
every State law and Constitution of every State 
in the Union abolishing slavery was, under that 
decision, against the Constitution of the United 
States, and therefore void. There is no half 
way with thia doctrine ; there i$ no middle 
ground ; there is no neutrality in it. I tell you, 
he that is not with u? is against ue. You under- 
stand it, sir. You cUim that your doctrine car- 
ries slavery into every Territory by force of the 
Constitution ; and it is because you claim this, 
because you are asserting this aggressive doc- 
trine in favor of slavery, that we are prepared 
to resist it by our action, to resist it in all law- 
ful and in all honorable ways. We are pledged 
to do so, and we expect to do so. 

Mr. President, the truth is, that a revolution, 
based upon this novel idea, that slavery is a 
blessing, has been inaugurated in this country 
within the last twelve years, is now in progress, 
and has not been altogether bloodless either. 
It was this same aggressive idea which led 
Mr. Atchison in Missouri, in 1853, months be- 
fore the Nebraska bill ever saw the light, to 
proclaim to the people of Western Missouri 
that slavery is a thing of divine right — (the same 
doctrine which afterwards culminated in the Le- 
cotupton Constitution;) that it is above and l)e- 
fore all Constitutions ; that Constitutions are to 
protect it, not to abolish it; and, assuming this, 
it was resolved to force it into the Territory of 
Kansas at all hazards, "at whatever sacrifice of 
blood or treasure," to use the language of the 
resolution of a meeting which he addressed 
long before the passage of the Kansas-Ne- 
braska act. There is the place where, and 



13 



elo- 



that was the time when, the war was declared 
oa this question. It was to carry out this ag- 
gressive policy, to carry the institution of sla- 
very into Territories free from it, made free by 
the law of Conj^jress itself, that that act was 
passed. I shall not go over what followed ; we 
are too familiar with that bloody chapter in our 
history. That aggression, too successful in the 
beginning, failed in the end. Republicanism, 
taking the alarm, reorganized itself, in 185G, 
and, though defeated in the canvass, achieved a 
victory. By its moral power it made some of 
the chosen instruments of that aggression stand 
back aghast, and shrink from the consequences 
of their own work. The revolutionary leaders 
were beaten, with the Administration in their 
hands. Kansas is free. 

We now say, I repeat, to our friends from 
the South, that, while it is your right to change 
your opinions on this question, when you un- 
dertake to force thosQ opinions upon the coun- 
try for the purpose of compelling the Govern- 
ment of the United States to revolutionize its 
whole policy, to carry out an aggressive policy 
for slavery extension everywhere, it is our inten- 
tion and full purpose to re=ist this revolution 
in the Government, and to overcome it — peace- 
fully of course, but we expect to overcome it. 

Mr. President, I haye detained the Senate long- 
er t'lan I anticipated; but there is contained in 
those few sentences of the annual message which 
I have read, that which covers the whole ground ; 
and, if adopted and acquiesced in by the Ameri- 
can people — which, in ray opinion, it will not 
be — the Calhoun revolution would be complete ; 
there would be no longer any free Territories ; 
all would be slave Territories ; there would no 
longer be any free States ; all would be slave 
States. 

The honorable Senator from Virginia, not now 
in his seat, [Mr. .Mason,] applied to the free States 
generally a term which I can hardly suffer to pass 
without notice. He called them "the servile 
States." I know not in what sense the honor- 
able gentleman intended to apply this term to 
the State which I represent; but in whatever 
sense, I shall never apply any term of opprobrium 
or disrespect to any of the States, and certainly 
never to the State from which he comes. No, 
sir; Virginia is a State in whose historj and 



achievements we take pride, and for whose o, 
ions, for whose earlier opinions, we bold t.. 
highest respect. Wisconsin, the State which 1 
represent, was born of Virginia; she was born 
in the day of her pride, and when the true prin- 
ciples of Virginia found place in her history, and 
were exnressi'd by her livinp statesmen. Hir, 1 
will employ no opprobrious epithet towards Vir- 
ginia — never. It is a State in the memory of 
whose great names we of Wisconsin feel proud. 
To Virginia we owe a debt of gratitude we can 
never repay. She has saved us, by her mas- 
terly policy in the day of tho infancy of the 
Northwestern Tcrrirory, from being cursed by 
the presence of that institution wliich, without 
speaking disre.ipectfully of her, I may be permit- 
ted to say, in my humble opinion, is sucking her 
very life's blood. 

Mr. President, I can speak, too, of the State of 
New York, for it was my native State. At the 
beginning of this century, where stood Virginia 
and New York in comparison with each other? 
Virginia had double the while population of 
New York; to-day she has but one million, per- 
haps, of white population, while New York li.aa 
more than three millions. New York is now 
the Empire State ; she h^s taken the place which 
Virginia once proudly occupied. Virginia has 
as noble harbors and rivers and waterfalls, a 
larger territory and better soils, and a milder 
climate, than New York. But for her heavy 
misfortune, in the presence of her servile negro 
population, there is every reason to l>elieve she 
would to-day have had a white population of 
at least three millions. What has Virginia 
got in exchange for two millions of white 
children? She has half a million of slaves 
and a quarter of a million of free negroes, per- 
haps. Do you ask me what is the cause of all 
this change in her comparative position? What 
has prodaceil it? Why is it that to-day, if our 
country were invaded by a foreign foe, even 
Wisconsin, young as she is, can bring as many 
troops into the field, and raise as much bread to 
sustain them, as Virginia herself? Why is it ? 
The answer is too plain. It is the presence of 
this servile population in Virginia which has 
produced this change in her comparative rela- 
tions to her sister States, and in coxTiparison 
even to her youngest-born, Wisconsin, which f 
am proud this day to represent. [See Note E.] 



r 



APPENDIX. 



It will be observed tbat, in tbe revisiou of the 
above speech, some portions of debate and collo- 
quy are omitted, and the order of the debate 
within brackets changed, that all said by me 
upon one subject may appear together. 

NOTE A. 

Mr. Calhoun, the great leader of this new 
school, far in advance of his followers, used this 
language in the Senate in 1833 : 

" JIany in the South once believed that it [slavery] was a 
moral and political evil : that lolly and delusion are gone. 
We see it now ia its true light, and regard it cs the most safe 
and stable basis tor Irco institutions in the world. It is im- 
possible with us that the conUict can take place between la- 
bor and capital, which make it so difficult to establish and 
maiutain free institutions in ail wealthy and highly-civilized 
nations where such institutions as ours [slavery] do not ex.- 
ist."— Appendix Ccng. Globe, 1837-'8,p. 62. 

Extract* from Mr. Hammond's speech in the 
Senate, from South Carolina, an eloquent disci- 
ple in the school of Mr. Calhoun, March 4, 1858, 
speaking of a class which he denominated the 
" mud sill " of society : 

"Fortunately for the South, she found a 'ace adapted to 
that purpose to her hand. •'= * * We use thfcm lor our 
purpose, and call them slaves. * « * We are old-fash- 
ioned at the South yet ; it is a word discarded now by 
'ears polite.' I will not characterize that class at the 
North by that term ; but you have it ; it is there ; it is every- 
where ; it is eternal ; * * * in short, your whole hirehng 
class of manual laborers and ' operatives,' as you call them, 
are essentially slaves. The diU'orence between us is, that 
our slaves ai-e hired for life, and well compensated ; * * * 
yours are hired by the day, not cared for, and scantily com- 
pensated ; * * * we do not thiuk that whites should be 
slaves, either by law or necessity. Our slaves are black, of 
another and interior race. * * * Yours are white, of 
your own race ; you are brothers of one bipod. They are 
your equals in natural endowment of intellect, and they feel 
galled by their degradation. Our slaves do not vote. We 
give them no pohtical power. Yours do vote, and, being the 
majority, they are the- depositaries of all your political 
power." 

The Richmond Enquirer, in 1855, then the 
leading journal of the Democratic party in the 
South, said : 

" At the North, and in "Western Europe, by attempting to 
dispense with a natural and necessary , aad hitherto univer- 
sal, hmb, element, or institution of society, you have thrown 
everything into chaotic confusion. Ia dispensing with do- 
mestic slavery, you have destroyed order, and removed the 
Btrongest argument to prove the existence of Deity, theau- 
thoi- of that order." 



Again — the same journal says, iu another 
number : 

" This is but part of our programme ; wo mean to show up 
free society — to show that the little cxpenraont made in a 
corner of WestiJrn Kurope has signally failed. I'hen we will 
invade our North, where a similar experiment is jnofcin^ — 
not ■nw.df.. We will point to a thousand premonitory symp- 
toms of ultimate failure, and always adduco the Abolitionists 
themselves as our witnesses. In tine, wo intend, from time 
to time, to institute a searching comparison between slave 
society and free society, and to prove that the former is the 
old, almost universal, normal, and natmal, condition of civ- 
ilized society." 

The Lynchburg Ecpuhlican, the leading paper 
in Central Virginia, in 1854, speaking of the 
" awful problem presented for solution by the 
conflict between capital and labor," asks : 

" And is there no solution — no harm'")nizing remedy? * * 
Woman is interior to man ; God and nature declare the fact ; 
but w^here the cause of quarrel between the two? The child 
is inferior to its parents ; but no war can grow up between 
them. In the last cases, the inferiority and subjection have 
ever been recognised. Notso with capital and labor. They 
have never ceased to fight lor the mastery, and they never 
will, until their true relations are recognised and acted upon 
by society. If this wore done, their clashing interests would 
be harmonized and made identical. How and where is this 
done? We answer, that it is accomplished by slavery, as it 
exists in the Southern Stiites. * * * Slavery is the cor- 
ner-stone of our republicanism. * * s= Slavery is the 
great peacemaker between capital and labor." 

Mr. Fitzhugh, in a book entitled " Free Society 
a Failure," commended very extensively by Dem- 
ocratic journals South, says : 

' • We d(j not adopt the theory that Ham was the ancestor 
of the negro race. The Jewish slaves were not negroes, and 
to confine the justification of slavery to that race, w^ould be 
to weaken its scriptural authority, and to lose the whole 
weight of profane authority, for wi; road of no negro slavery 
in ancient times. * * * Slavery, black or white, is right 
andnecessary. * * * The slaves are governed far better 
than the free laborers at the North are governed. Our ne- 
groes are not only better off as to |)hyi^ical comfort than free 
laborers, but their moral condition is better." 

How different the opinions of the old Republi- 
can party, South as well as North ! 



NOTE B. 

VIKGINIA OPINION IN THE REVOLUTIONARTlniA. 
George Washington to Gen. Lafayette. 
" I agree with you cordially in your views in rcga^to ne- 
gro slavery. I have long considered it a most so'ious evil, 
both sociaty and politically, and I should rejcjice in any feasi- 
ble scheme to rid our States of such a burden . The Congress 
of 1787 adopted an ordiaaace which prohibits the exisVcuco 



15 



ofinvoluntary servitude in our Northwestern Territory for- 
ever . / cunsider il a wise, measure. It m^t with the approval 
and osstTif (f nearly evitry member from the Stales more imioe- 
(iialely irit'^rested in shiie labor. Ihe j>revailing opinion in 
Virginia is against the spread of flaveri/ in our new TerrUo- 
» iV^-, A.VD I TliUST WE SHALL iLiVE A CONFEDERACY OF 
HaiEtTATEs." 

Same to lioljert Morrif, 1786. 
" I can only say, that there is not a man living who wishes 
more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the aboli- 
tion of it, [slavery,] but there ia only one proper and eflect- 
\ial mode in which il can bo accomplished, and that is by 
legislative authority ; and this, so far as my suffrage will 
go, shall uevvr be wanting." — 'J Sjxirks's Washington, 158. 

Mr. JetFerson, in his Notes on Virgiaia: 
"The abolition of domestic slavery is the greatest object 
of desire in these Colonies, where it was unhappily intro- 
duced in their infant slate. But previous to the enfranchise- 
ment of the slaves, il is necessary to exclude further import- 
ations from Africa."— >4)nmcon Archives, ith series, vol. I, 
p. 696. 

Again, Mr. Jefferson, with that wonderful sa- 
gacity which seems almost inspired, not only 
points out the evil, buf, in the same sentence, 
points out the only practical solution of it: 

" Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate, THAN 
THAT TUESKi'KOPLE AUK TO nK FREE ; nor is il less certain that 
Vie two races, equally free, cannot live in tlie same Government. 
Nature, habit, and o[)inion, have drawn indelible lines of dis- 
tinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the 
process of emanciixition and depnrUilion peaceably, and in 
such slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly, 
and their places be, pari paasu, filled up with free while 
labore>-s. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, hu- 
man nature must shudder at the prospects held up." 

Madison, in 1780: 

" O^ngress might, for example, respecting the introduction 
of slaves into the new .-^tutes to be formed out of the Western 
Territory, maJce regulations, ^\k\\ as were beyond their power 
In relation to the old settled States." 

TIRGINIA OPINlOy, AS EXPRESSED BY MEMBERS OP 
UER LEOISL.vrUKE AS LATE AS 1832. 

Mr. Moore, of Rockbridge, said : 

" In tho first place, I shall conflne my remarks to such of 
thoSj evils as eU'ecL the wh;te population exclusively. And 
even in that point of view I think that slavery, as it exists 
amon? us, may be regarded as the heaviest calamity which 
has ever befallen any portion of the human race." 

Mr. Rives, of Campbell, said: 

"On the multiplied and dcsulatiiig evils of slavery, he was 
not disposed to say much. The curse and deteriorating con- 
sequences were w.thiu the observation and experience of the 
members of the House and tho people of Virginia, and it did 
seem to him that there could not be two opinions about it." 

Mr. Powell said : , 

" I can scarcely persuade myself that there is a solitary 
gentleman in this House who will not readily admit that sla- 
very is an evil, and that its removal, if practicable, is a con- 
summation most devoutly to be wished. / have not heard, 
nor do I expect to hear, a voice raised in this hall to tlie con- 
trary." 

Another Representative from JeflFerson and 

Harper's Ferry, Mr. Henry Berrj', said : 

" I believe that no cancer on the physical body was ever 
more certain, steady, and fatal in its progress, than is the 
cinccr on the political body of the State of Virginia. It is 
eating into her very vitals." 

Mr. Thomas Mar-^hall, of Fauquier, in the 
same section of Virginia, said: 

" Wherefore, then, object to slavery ? Because it is ruin- 
ous to the whiles, ret;irds improvement, roots out an indus- 
trious popukition, bannhes the yeomanry of tho country, 
lUiprivosihe spinner, tli" weaver, the smith, the shoemaker, 
the carpoeter, of employment an,d support." 

[Mr. Preston of Jetrergon,Mr. Summers of Kan- 
awha, Mr. Chandler of Norfolk, Thomas J. Ran- 
dolph, grandaon of Jetferson, Mr. Boiling of Buck- 



ingham, urged the same views with great elo- 
quence and power.] 

Mr. Brodnax, of Dinwiddle, said : 

" That slavery in Virginia is an evil, it would be idle, and 
more than idle, lor any human being to doubt or deny. II 
is a mildew which has blighted in its course every region it 
has touclied, from tho creation of the world." 

The Hon. Charles J. Faulkner, who also re- 
sides in the vicinity of Harper's Ferry, made a 
long, eloquent, and radically abolition speech, in 
which he said :" 

" Docs not tho same evil exist? Is it not increasing? Docs 
not every day give it permanency and force? Is it not ri- 
sing like a heavy and portcnloiig cloud above the horizon, 
extending its deep and sable volumes athwart the sky, and 
gathering in its impenetrable folds the active materials of 
elemental war? " 

Mr. Jame3 McDowell, of Rockbridge, since 
Governor of the State, and a distinguished mem- 
ber of Congress, said : 

"Sir, you may place the slave where you please, you may 
dry up, to your utmost, tho fountains of his feelings, tho 
springs of Iiis th(night ; you may close upon his mind every 
avenue to knowledge, and cloud it over with artificial night ; 
you may yoke him to your labor as an ox which liveth only 
to work, and worketh only to live ; you may put him under 
any process, which, without destroying his valuo as a slave, 
will debase and crush hira as a rational being ; you may do 
this, and the idea that he was born to be free will survive it 
all,. It is allied to his hope of immorUility ; it is the o^iereal 
part of his nature, which oppression cannot reach ; it is a 
torch lit up in his soul by the hand of the Deity, and never 
meant to be extinguished by the hand of man." , 

In another part of the speech, he gives the fol- 
lowing prophetic warning to the South, and 
which those who now madly talk about dissol- 
ving the Union would do well to heed : 

" If genllemen tin not see and feel the evil of slavery while 
this Federal Union lasts, they will see and fed it when il is 
gone; the)' will see and suller it then in a magnitude of des- 
olating power, to which ' the pestilence that waikcth at noon- 
day ' would be ,a blessing — to which the malana which is now 
threatening extinction to the ' Eternal City,' as the proud 
one of the I'onliftij and Csesars is called, would bo as refresh- 
ing and as balmy as the Ur.st breath of spring to the cham- 
ber of disease. * * * Was it the fear of Nat Turner, and 
his doludeil, drunken handful of fellows, which produced, or 
could produce, such effects? Was it this that induced distant 
counties, where the very name of SouUiamplon was strange, 
to arm and equip for a struggle? No, sir ; it was the sus- 
picion eternally attached to tho slave himself; the suspicion 
that a Nat Turner might be in every family ; that the sairw 
bloody deed could be acted over at any time, and in any 
place ; that the materials for it were spread through the 
land, and always ready for a like explosion." 



NOTE C. 
Without raising any question as to the integ- 
rity or personal honor of Mr. Calhoun, th# facts 
show, I think, conclusively, that in 1820, as a 
member of Mr. .Moriroe's Cabinet, ho must have 
given his opinion in favor of the constitutionality 
of the Missouri compromib,? The denial of Mr. 
Calhoun was made in 1848, ahucst thirty years 
after the event. It is not positive and absolute 
in its term.s, but is based upon a want of recol- 
lection. .Mr. Dix, of New York, was speaking 
upon this question, and Mr. Calhoun said : 

" If the Senator will give way, it will be, perhaps, better 
that I make a statement at once respecting this subject, as 
far as my recollection will serve me. During tho whole pe- 
riod of Mr. Monroe's Administration,! remember no occjslon 
on which the members of hi.=!. Administration gave writt'ii 
opinions. I have an impression, though — not a very distinct 
one — that on one occasion they were required to give writ- 
ten opinions ; bilt, for some reason not now recollected, thu 
request was not carried into effect." 



i 



16 



He subsequently denied it, I am told, in more 

positive terms. 

The facts, however, going to show that Mr. 
Calhoun favored the Missouri compromise in 
1820 are: 1st. An admission made in 1838, by 
him, in these words : 

" He was not a member of Congress when that compro- 
mise was made, but it is due to candor to state that his im- 
pressions wore iu ite favor ; but it is equally due to it to say, 
■that, with his present experience and knowledge ol the spirit 
which then, lor the Urst time, began to disclose itself, he had 
entirely changed his opinion."— ^iJpendt* Cong. Globe, 1838, 
p. 70. 

2d. Mr. Dix read in the Senate, July 26, 1848, 
(Appendix Cong. Globe, pp. ll78-'9,) from Mr. 
Monroe's manuscripts, a/ac simile of a paper en- 
dorsed ^'■Interrogatories, Missouri, March 4, 1820. 
To the Heads of Departments and Attorney Gen- 
eral." 

Questions, (on opposite page.) 

" Has Congress a right, under the powers vested in it by 
tho Constitution, to make a reguUxiion prohibiting slavery in 
a Territory ? , ^ , 

" Is the 8th section of the act which passed both houses 
ou the 3d instant, for the admission of Missouri into the 
Union, consistent with the Constitution? " 

3d. He also read extracts from the diary of 
Mr. Adams, of March 4, 5, and 6, 1820, positively 
stating that the Cabinet were summoned to give 
their opinions, and that they did give them, 
unanimously in the affirmative, to the first ques- 
tion. 

4th. The fac simile of a letter in Mr. Monroe's 
handwriting, supposed to have been written to 
General Jackson, in which he says : 

'• I took the opinion in writing of the Administration as to 
6ie consti.utjonality of resti-aining the Territories, v^hicliwas 



exphcit in favor of it, and as it was that the 8th section of 
the act was applicable to Territories only, and not to £iat>-.s 
when they should be admitted into the Union." 

5th. The Index Book of the Department of 
State, referring to the filing of Cabinet answer.^, 

All these facts together place this matter of 
history beyond reasonable doubt. 



NOTE D. 
Extract from Gov. St. Clair's speech {National 
Intelligencer, December 6, 1802) to the Conven- 
tion of the Northwestern Territory : 

" That the people of a Territory should form a Convention 
and a Constitution needed no act of Congress. To pretend to 
authorize it was, on their part, an interference with the in- 
ternal affairs of the country, which they had neither the pow- 
er nor the right to make. The act is not binding on the peo- 
ple, and is, ill truth, a nullity ; and could it be brought be-' 
fore that tribunal where acts of Congress can be tried, would 
bo declared a nullity. To all acts of Congress that respect 
the United States (they can make no other) iu their corpo- 
rate capacity, and which are extended by express words to 
a Territory, we are bound to yield obedience. Forall inter- 
nal affairs, we have a complete Leyislaiure of our own, and in 
them are no more bound by an lict of Corigress than we wi-uld 
be bound hy an edict of the First Consul of France." 

In his speech, he used other disrespectful lan- 
guage towards Congress, but his main position! 
are based, as I understand him, upon the princi- 
ple stated iu his speech of Territorial sovereignty 



NOTE E. 
The title to tho Northwestern Territory was 
disputed between New York and Virginia, 
claimed by both, and relinquished by both to 
the old Confederation. Many believe that New 
York held the paramount title. 



PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1860. 



REPUBLICAN EXECUTIVE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE. 



HON. 



PRESTON KfNG, N. Y., Chairman. 
J. W. GRIMES, IOW;\. 
L. F. S. FOSTER, COiN. . 
House of Representatives. 
E. B. WASHBURNE, ILLINOIS. 



House of Representatives. 
HON. JOHN COVODE, PENN., Treasurer. 
" E. G. SPAULDING, N. Y. 
" J. B. ALLEY, MASS. 
" DAVID KILGORE, INDIANA. 
" J. L. N. STRATTON, N. J. 

GEORGE HARRINGTON, Secretary. 

During the Presidential Campaign, Speeches and Documents will be supplied at the follovr 
iag reduced prices : 

Eight pages, per hundred, -- - - - - - - _ $0.50 

Sixteen " " -----.-__ I.OO 

Twenty-four " -----.... 1^50 

Address either of the ahove Committee. 



Syracuse, N. Y. 

PAT. JAN, 21. 1908 



NC3 




II I mil III nil I III. I mil i!i ii<i<il 
011 898 254 A % 



I 



